隐私涉及人们不愿让步的具体利益,单方赋予删除权可能刺激市场入侵,增加交易成本,并引发社会歧视。隐私诉求是包含着许多微观动机的宏观行为,不探明隐私背后的真实原因,一味强化隐私,不过是走向吁求的反面。被遗忘权也许限制了人际隐私侵犯,但因为隐私的消极自由性质,结果不可避免地强化政府监控权力。隐私具有高度情境性,鼓励封闭的被遗忘权将悖论式地导致隐私焦虑。数字隐私的辩证在于,主动袒露击败窥视欲,并有利于营造良好自我形象。被遗忘权的修辞掩盖了邻居深渊的潜意识,并使一个高度感情化的问题进一步情绪化。数字隐私具有不可预测性与无从防范性,过度保护隐私不仅无济于事,而且可能引发史翠珊效应。对于数字隐私保护,具体规定优于一揽子政策,事后救济优于事先防范,顺其自然优于步步惊心,鼓励人们培养动态身份意识优于鼓励人们封闭自己。 Privacy relates to the specific interests that people are unwilling to give in. The unilateral exclusion of rights may stimulate market invasions, increase transaction costs and trigger social discrimination. Privacy appeal is a macroscopic behavior that contains many micro motives. Without seeking out the true reasons behind privacy, privacy is just the opposite of going to appeal. The right to be forgotten may limit human privacy violations, but as a result of the negative and free nature of privacy, the result inevitably reinforces the power of government surveillance. Privacy is highly contextual, encouraging the closed forgotten right to paradoxically lead to privacy anxiety. The dialectical nature of digital privacy lies in taking the initiative to defeat the glimpse of voyeurism and to create a good self-image. The rhetoric of the right to forget masks the subconscious of the abyss of neighbors and further emotionalizes a highly emotional problem. Digital privacy is unpredictable and unprotected, overprotective privacy is not only helpless, but also may lead to Streisandl effect. For the digital privacy protection, the specific provisions are better than the package policy, and the relief after the accident is better than the prior prevention. Naturally, it is more alarming and easier to encourage people to cultivate dynamic identity consciousness than encouraging people to close themselves.